Bicyclist shot after colliding with pickup truck

Police said the two began arguing after the bicyclist disregarded a "Do Not Cross" signal at Telegraph and Northline roads, causing the driver to hit him. Witnesses said the bicyclist got up and confronted the driver.

"The pedestrian light was red. He wasn't supposed to be crossing and ran into the side of the truck," said witness Michelle Noffsinger. "He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy."

Yet another Darwin Award for someone who didn't learn a valuable lesson when growing up. Keep your hands to yourself.

91. The case in point...

...is someone (part of "The American public") who after breaking some laws and hurting himself by accidentally colliding with someone else, decided to attack the person he hit while riding his bicycle. Is he the "judge, jury and executioner" whom you are not trusting?

Perhaps is was the victim of the attack who defended himself by shooting his attacker.

24. he was in his car

and I don't think he could have just driven away, without killing the biker or crashing into others. He would be flooring it through a red light with traffic going 50 miles per hour. Good way to injure or kill innocents. Oh wait, since they would be killed by a car instead of a gun, their deaths would be less tragic or less real.
I don't think tasers are legal, and pepper spray doesn't work that close of a range without affecting you.

You don't know the difference between self defense and vigilantism. This clearly wasn't the latter.

If you have a gun, you get to be judge, jury and executioner. and the rest of us get to live in fear of you having a bad day.

which is irrelevant an absurd, since this is not vigilantism. If the attacker kept his hands to himself, he wouldn't have gotten shot. I'm not sugar coating anything, simply looking at it realistically.

41. "If the attacker kept his hands to himself, he wouldn't have gotten shot."

True, but the point is, not keeping your hands to yourself shouldn't be punishable by death. Most of the homicides that the pro-gunners like to celebrate are unnecessary. It's almost as if the gun nuts like the questionable shootings even more than the legitimate ones, because it's "pushing the envelope" of self-defense. Anyone would shoot a guy who is charging you with a gun and screaming that they are going to kill you, but shooting an unarmed bike rider takes real devotion to the gun cult.

45. since you were not there

you are making assumptions not based on the article but only in your imagination. Kind of like the gas station shooting where you said "he should have gotten in his car" even though he was retreating before he fired, and we have no idea if he had a car there. He could have walked around the corner for a Pepsi. He was not shot for touching, he was shot for violently punching.
I'm not making any such assumptions. Bare hands are lethal weapons. More people are murdered with fists than all long guns combined including "assault weapons". There is also the disparity of force when you look at comparative health and ages, which we don't know. In short, the "unarmed" is utter bullshit.
No one is celebrating anything, once again you are projecting unfounded assumptions on people you don't like, aka bigotry, basing assumptions on information you don't have, on subjects you know nothing about.
Since those are busy streets in Detroit, moving the vehicle, if he could, would have caused a pile up likely killing the cyclist and injuring innocents in the intersection. When making decisions, one must look at all of the possible outcomes and pick the least worst. Given your claims of being very well educated and brilliant, I find it odd that you don't realize that.
So far, the investigators and DA his reasonable fear meets the "reasonable man" standard. They know more of the relevant details than either of us.

48. And you are making assumptions too.

Still, from the facts that we know, it is very likely that this whole situation could have been resolved without someone getting killed. The death of a "bad guy" makes gun nuts giddy, and so they try to simplify the situation to a "good guy versus bad guy" moral scenario that doesn't give rise to any troubling ambiguities. But, the pattern I've observed in a lot of these "DGU threads" is that there is usually no real threat to life or even serious injury.

And the statistics bear that out. People who own or carry guns are not statistically safer than people who don't. They are more likely to shoot someone in "self-defense", but all those shootings don't translate into more personal safety.

52. yeah, but I'm putting some thought in to my assumptions

anyone suggesting the driver bolt into busy cross traffic, which anyone with a room double digit IQ would realize the death and injury that would cause. No one is "giddy", so don't project. You don't grasp the situation, the reality is attacker and defender. Attack is repelled. There is nothing moral or immoral about it. It is what is hardwired in all mammals. We like to pretend that we are "the moral animal" but the reality is we are primates genetically less than one percent different than chimps and bonabos. To pronounce that you know what would have been a better course of action even though
you were not there
have no idea of what all of the facts were
no idea what the shooter based his information on,
but still make pronouncements of what the "moral thing would have done" is arrogant and foolish. It also feeds into one of the worst stereotypes that the right uses against the the left, and it doesn't play well in most of the US or anywhere else. All due respect to Thomas Frank, that is really the matter with Kansas.

You observe what you want to. What you read or think you observe based on a couple of paragraphs, isn't enough information to base any decision on. You are filtering that small amount of the information through an ideological filter that precludes you from seeing it from the participant's point of view.
I honestly don't think you would approve of even the most obvious example of self defense because it would conflict what you think is "the truth". You remind me of a Rush "dittohead" the kind of person that doesn't come to their own conclusions based on actual experience or education, but rather "I call myself a liberal/conservatives therefore I am supposed to believe this" anyone who disagrees with one issue is automatically a (a fill in the blank)

53. Some situations are simple enough that

even a 12-year-old can figure it out.

If you are stuck in traffic and wearing your seatbelt, then your head is the only target available to the attacker outside your car. Like it or not, you are in a deadly attack with no hope of retreating.

63. Sometimes things really are just that simple.

In most places in this country, if you physically assault me I can use deadly force to defend myself.

I don't understand why you continue to think this is a bad thing.

No innocent person should have to run away from, submit to, or bodily fight off a violent attacker.

It really is that simple.

Here is what an eyewitness said:

"The pedestrian light was red. He wasn't supposed to be crossing and ran into the side of the truck," said witness Michelle Noffsinger. "He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy."

According to the eye witness, the assailant was "pounding on" the victim, "seven times or so".

No one should be required or expected to run away from that, or to submit to it, or to have to resort to martial arts to defend themselves. If you have a gun, you don't have to do any of those things, and you should be expected to resort to them instead of the gun.

I find it truly and absolutely unbelievable that there are people like you who think so. I find it absolutely astounding that you don't read about this kind of situation from the same article as everyone else and find this an absolutely black and white case of self-defense.

From what is presented in the article, this really is a simplistic, good guy vs. bad guy situation.

106. the police seem to think so

more people are killed with bare fists than with so called assault weapons. What would you do in the situation? The only dangerous psychopath was the cyclist who violently assaulted some guy for no legitimate reason.

110. Did the victim deserve to be assaulted?

And you wonder why some of us think gun advocates are dangerous psychpaths

There is nothing psychopathic in defending oneself from violence with a firearm.

Deserving has nothing to do with it. The bicyclist was "pounding" on the victim, about 7 times, according to an eye-witness.

This is a clear-cut case of self-defense from violent assault.

I really don't understand your mindset how when someone is physically beating the shit out of an innocent person and they get shot for it how you can be sympathetic to the guy doing the beating. I really don't.

Bicyclist runs into someone's truck, flips his shit and starts beating the crap out of the driver, the driver defends himself, but suddenly it's the driver who is a dangerous psychopath.

178. Some good points. nt

70. Tasers & pepper spray

In Michigan Tasers only just within the last four weeks even became legal to own in Michigan by a private individual, and only more recently became legal (by court decision) to have concealed if you have a Michigan CPL. Any sort of chemical agent concealed is illegal in Michigan and is highly regulated i.e. Michigan legal chemical agent.

77. Since when is

97. It's more than that.

Tasers and chemical agents aren't non deadly, they are less lethal. People have died from both the use of Tasers, mace and pepper spray. They aren't toys and just because they are the new in thing doesn't make them better. People can fight threw both, there is a reason cops have Tasers, chemical agent and guns. It's always nice having the ability to up the use of force but you have to remember that a strike to the head, neck and face can lead to long term or permanent damage to the brain and spine or death. We have already established that there are many deaths in this country ever year from being attacked with fists and feet.

92. did you read the article?

There is no evidence he got out of the car. He had his window rolled down.

He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy."

So the "seems to me he was looking to shoot someone" is not only absurd projection, but most of the most moronic Brady talking points around.

There is a chance he could not have driven away, that was my point. Hitting him with your car and driving off, assuming you could?

72. In some places it's the law

83. some places,

and certainly has its problems. One of which is one has to prove their innocence of murder or manslaughter in many cases. In this case, it is entirely possible that the shooter was "against the wall" making the issue moot. Running a red light into a six lane high way to retreat would lead to the cyclist's death, more injured in the pile up.
Legal obligation but not moral obligation. Ever wonder "duty to whom?"

87. This wasn't a six lane highway

Looks like a residential area to me, no more then two lanes, with a turn lane. The pedestrian light was red, not the drivers. The guy came around to the drivers side, at that point it would have been a good time to leave.

103. Wait a minute...

The light is red and you're stopped just after some idiot has run into your vehicle, they run around to the driver's side of the car and the FIRST thing you think of is to drive away? Talk about 20/20 hindsight. The driver had no idea he was about to be assaulted. He started to get his head beaten in, he WAS getting his head beaten in and he defended himself. There is zero reason to fault him for defending himself. He would be doing his own family a disservice by NOT defending himself. How is it ok for the driver to end up dead instead of the instigator of the violence?

109. And that's a darn shame. nt

107. The point the other poster is making

is that you are comparing suicides to homicides..it is a typical tactic used by the Brady orgs..to hell with honesty..like..where the hell did you get the false 80 number in post 16? "besides which, 80 people die a year by having "the shit beat out of them," 50 die a year from being hit by lightning." Make it up?

Homicides by firearms are <10k annually, the number of 'hands and feet' homicides is in the 800 range annually..or around 8% of the gun homicide rate....not worth considering when someone is punching you in the face, eh?

6. what would you do

1 while getting pounded on, and trying to deflect punches? What are the differences in size and strength?
2 what are the traffic conditions? Is there room to maneuver? if cyclist was hurt or killed by the moving vehicle, would there be
charges? If he moved the vehicle the cyclist probability would have been injured or killed.
3 based on couple of detail free paragraphs, we don't know if that was in fact the best or only alternative or not. The SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. quote when SYG became federal standard in 1921 applies here: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".

That is the thing about armchair generals and sofa sergeant majors who never read a book on military science or history, yet pretend to know what is fact and what is Red Dawn.
I find it strange that anti self defense folks seem to assume the worst about the defender regardless of the situation, and assume ideal conditions for alternate actions even when there is no evidence of those alternatives being viable or not.

8. Naturally, you kill the cyclist! The point of "defensive gun use" isn't self-protection, silly!

It's about the glory of becoming a gun hero. Showing that bike rider who's boss! I mean, sure, you could just drive away, and let the guy live, but you're not going to become a gun hero by being prudent and respectful of human life!

11. not a valid answer

you either didn't read or comprehend what you tried to read. If you drive off, in traffic, the bike rider would have been injured or killed in traffic. Even without traffic, he would be injured or killed with your car. That is before you get to the moronic "gun hero" straw man.

13. "The bike rider would have been injured or killed".

And you know this because... umm... wait, no you're just making that up. And even if the bike rider had been injured, that's a lot better than dead, don't you think?

I'm not saying the bike rider wasn't out of line, but the thing is, people resolve conflicts without killing anyone all the time, even conflicts with people who are belligerent and out of line. I highly doubt that killing was necessary in this situation. Why is it that you guys always jump to make excuses for the gun hero?

14. not making up anything

just reading the article and applying logic. You are making up the traffic conditions and possible alternatives. In other words, your reasoning ability is stunted by ideology.

I'm not saying the bike rider wasn't out of line, but the thing is, people resolve conflicts without killing anyone all the time, even conflicts with people who are belligerent and out of line.

Yeah you can reason with someone pounding the shit out of you. If someone is beating the shit out of you, you are not talking him down.

I highly doubt that killing was necessary in this situation. Why is it that you guys always jump to make excuses for the gun hero?

He shot to stop, not to kill. The fact that the attacker died is beside the point. Since you have no idea what else was going on, the shooter's state of mind, or what he saw as viable alternatives, you are making shit up. Don't make shit up and accuse me of making shit up.

I'm not jumping to excuse anyone. You and other anti self defense types seem to find excuses or even assume facts not in evidence to think the worst of someone who is being violently attacked. The most extreme example is the one anti that projects his own apparent racism onto others. This is the guy that says the defender was a racist, even when the evidence shows the defender retreating, yet excuses a cop machine gunning a child in the back.

21. Because "you guys" always condemn any defensive gun use..

That's why.

"They should have just run away, instead of shooting."
"They should have run out the back door, instead of shooting."
"They should just give the criminal what he wants, instead of shooting."
"The person was just drunk, and in the wrong house."
"He was just a teenager."

108. it is not murder

if someone is punching you in the face, you have every legal and moral right to defend yourself. Over twice as many people are murdered with bare fists than "assault weapons" and that is before you get to the permanent maiming. The only psychopath was the cyclist who went into a rage after he hit the truck.

116. That's precisely what it is: murder. The Matt Dillon-wannabe had multiple options open

to him in order to avoid having to use deadly force, including locking his doors, simply driving off, and contacting the police. He instead pulled out his PRD, and blazed away. Easier to just shoot someone, you see, rather than drive off and contact the cops. You are quite right: it was simply murder.

117. since you weren't there

he could not have simply driven off into six lanes of traffic. Maybe the cyclist got there before he could get his windows rolled up? You are speculating a lot based on nothing. At least I took the time to look at the intersection in Google Maps.
The cyclist was committing assault and battery, maybe turning into second degree murder or manslaughter.
Neither of you made a single valid point even based on information given in the article.

121. Completely valid, and all the hand-waving in the world don't make it so.

"He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy...Witnesses told police the driver pulled a pistol and fired one round at the bicyclist, striking him in the chest."

He had ample opportunity to retreat from the scene: he was in a pickup truck, for Dog's sake, and the guy was on a bicycle.

He just didn't want to, and so a guy is dead. The guy who made him dead should be charged with murder. Period.

123. you know this how?

if he were boxed in traffic, he could not have. He would have no way of knowing his intentions until he started getting his face pounded in. Hitting someone in the face seven times is attempted murder. There is no law or court in North America or Europe that would charge him with murder let alone convict him.

130. "if he were boxed in traffic" - Those are your words; your assertion. Back it up.

Show us whether either eyewitnesses or the cops said he was "boxed in." Step up to the plate with evidence, as opposed to "mabye" and "Google Maps" and "you weren't there" and "if" and more "maybe's"...let's have it.

132. Doesn't matter

some newspaper isn't going into that great of detail. I don't have to prove anything. You are the one saying the cops and the law are wrong, you have to provide the proof. You are the one said "he could have just driven off" without knowing or even thinking about the situation, so the burden if proof is on you.

126. "maybe"..."Google Maps"...."you weren't there"..."if"...and then back to "maybe" again...

141. The pattern is, anytime a gun hero shoots a bad guy...

...all the NRA bots will bend over backwards to find excuses, however improbable, to vindicate the shooter and insist that the gun was the only way out of the situation. Kinda makes you wonder how so many non-gun-toters manage to survive all the dangers of day to day life without ever shooting anyone.

144. Spot-on analysis, all of it. I've seen this kind of bloodlust disguised as concern for "RKBA"

for years down here, and as time goes by it only seems to get worse.

You said: " Kinda makes you wonder how so many non-gun-toters manage to survive all the dangers of day to day life without ever shooting anyone"

This is a point the vast majority of our fellow progressives agree with us on throughout DU. The fact that it's a curiosity in the Gungeon among our "pro gun progressives" is quite telling. Again, excellent commentary.

148. who's making excuses

it looks like your side is making back flips to turn a victim of a violent crime the villain for petty ideological reasons. None of them, including you, made a single valid point because they can't even read the article correctly. One even said "he got of of the truck" even when the article said he was in the truck.

Well, if he was not a "toter" most likely he would be among the 800 people a year that are murdered by bare fists or permanently injured from blunt force trauma to the head.

149. Here, here...it's not as bad as all that. Just because you've been schooled on the facts and

been caught red-handed several times in this sub-thread distorting facts or just leaving them out or simply making them up, doesn't mean a thing in the bigger scheme of things. It's just an internet discussion board debate you've lost, not the end of the world.

165. you are the one making stuff up

you are assuming that he had options open to him. I never said he didn't, other than driving into six lanes of traffic. I'm beginning to think your cognitive skills are as questionable as your reading skills.

133. Cops don't "think" anything of the sort: they arrested him.

As you are obviously unaware of how these things work: usually, the cops turn their investigation over to the district attorney's office, which then makes a determination whether to charge a person or not.

Turns out your "opinion" isn't worth much, as it's not based on any kind of facts...

156. you have no evidence that he had the opportunity

you are assuming it. As far as the law is concerned, it doesn't matter. There is a famous Oliver W. Holmes quote about "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife"

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".

164. it is very relevant

the point of the quote. Hit the gas into six lanes of traffic, right. You are assuming he could have hit the gas without crashing, you are assuming he was not in the process of rolling up the window when the nut came around, I doubt the cyclist was calmly walking around. Then again, maybe the driver's first thought was he was going to apologize for hitting the truck, which would be a reason to leave the windows down. I don't know either, but I'm not the one claiming to know.
So, you don't know for a fact that he had any choice. You don't actually know anything.

168. As he had ample opportunity to retreat, it is not relevant. Period. n/t.

146. I never said he wasn't arrested.

I know far better than you how these things work, he was arrested, interrogated, then released, the report will be turned over to the DA who will more than likely decline to press charges based on witness statements, defendant's statement, reponding police statements, the detective's investigation, medical reports.

153. "have a good day" <--Third time I've been bid adieu by you today.

Saying goodbye to a person must mean something different where you come from....

In any event, you said:

"Busted?"

Yes: busted.

You posted an assertion without including in that assertion a very major fact, to wit, that our Matt Dillon-wannabe was arrested by the police. Whether he will be charged will be up to the D.A. Instead, you just acted as if the police had patted him on the back and sent him on his way with no reservations whatsoever. That was shown to be false.

Yes, busted.

"Suffice to say that I have far more knowledge how this works than you do"

75. Out of line

Yo mamma jokes are out of line. No one here can read minds, you don't know what the end intention of anyone involved except the man doing the beating, and you still don't know how far he was going to take that. At the end of the day you don't know what the available alternatives were, we can speculate all day but no one knows for sure. I will tell you from my experiences that you get a very narrow view when someone is on top you of you throwing punches and yelling. And in that split second you'll know if its a life and death situation or if you can reasonably stop the treat by other means. Does anyone here actually draw from life experience or is it mere speculations?

10. Choices? No, you can't think!

You have a road-raged and possibly steroid-raged cyclist pounding on you, probably can't close the window, certainly can't just drive into the traffic on either Telegraph or Northline - both have traffic going 45-50mph.

9. Some bicyclists do stupid things when they're pumped up

I had one pound his fist on my vehicle last weekend after I passed him. I gave him plenty of room, but he wasn't paying attention to traffic and was startled when he saw me. He hit my truck, yelled "Watch yourself!" at me, then ran a stop sign, turned right, and almost wiped out.

He and his buddy weren't even wearing helmets, and he thought he could take on a three-ton vehicle with his bare hands.

27. You do not know what you're talking about.

The Use of Deadly Force is The Use of Deadly Force, period. That means, you do not Shoot to Warn, Shoot to Wound, or Shoot to Kill. You Shoot to Stop. That is exactly what this man did, he fired ONE shot, and the assault against him was stopped, thus he stopped shooting.

30. Obviously you have never taken a firearm self-defense class

There is no "shoot to wound" or "shoot to kill." You shoot to STOP, and only when you have decided that you have no reasonable alternative.

Brandishing may not have been an option, and depending on state law doing so can sometimes create legal issues that don't don't come up when you actually shoot someone. A person punching you repeatedly is plenty of justification for use of deadly force.

31. "Shoot to wound?"

Sorry, but you never, ever do that. Shooting to "just wing 'em" is Hollywood bullshit. In the fluid, fast-moving reality of actual violent conflict, just hitting the torso of a human being is not easy to do (just look at that recent debacle in New York...). Bottom line: if you don't have the legal and ethical right to kill someone who is attacking you, you shouldn't pull the gun at all.

35. it is Hollywood bullshit

One case of "trying to wing them" was a case in Del Ray Beach, Florida. Guy robs deli with knife. After the owner hands over the money, robber decided to take her 18 month old as a hostage. That got him shot. She shot him in the leg, the bullet hit the femoral artery causing the robber to bleed to death in less than a minute. In this case, the attackers upper torso and head seemed to be the only thing exposed. But then, the Oliver W. Holmes quote applies.

37. What Would Neil Degrasse Tyson say?

38. Some are, some aren't.

But you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of people in the world who could reliably hit a person in a non-vital part of an extremity (or some other part of their body that woudl not risk a fatal wound) in the fast-moving conditions of actual violent conflict. Those people make a lot of money staging trick shooting exhibitions. Even world-class shooting competitors and the most highly-trained military and law-enforcement people (Air Marshalls, for example) couldn't make such a shot more than one time in twenty. You do NOT take that kind of risk in a potentially life or death situation (and particularly when there are bystanders...again, look at those NYPD clown shoes...).

You don't use a firearm to apply non-lethal force. That's what pepper spray or (if you happen to be physically suited) your fists are for. Guns are for when you feel threatened with deadly or crippling force yourself.

47. Shooting to wound...

...is a very bad idea. The very last thing you want to do is fire a shot with someone close enough to you to be hitting you that you may not incapacitate him with the hit or may miss him altogether and injure a bystander. This will usually result in the attacker taking your weapon. In most jurisdictions and in the mind of anyone thinking straight and morally, deadly force needs to be applied only in response to grave danger.

Your greatest chance of stopping the attack presenting a grave danger is to target the attacker's center of mass. This same target also affords you the smallest chance of shooting a bystander.

54. Shoot to wound is both illegal* and immoral.

If you are not shooting to stop, then you do not believe your life is in danger. If you don't believe your life is in danger, you should not be using deadly force by shooting someone. Deadly force is always deadly force.

191. At least you were honest enough to admit you are trolling

34. what am I missing here? Bicyclists are NOT pedestrians in any state that I'm aware of....

Did the cyclist run a red light? If so, he's at fault for the initial accident. Was he obeying traffic laws, i.e. did he have the right of way? The OP is unclear on that. It says the pedestrian light was red, but the pedestrian light does not apply to cyclists. The TRAFFIC light applies. Was the cyclist's traffic light green or yellow? Was the truck turning on a red light?

But of course none of that really addresses the cowardice of the shooter who evidently thought the risk of being punched or pushed was grave enough to justify deadly force. Might have hurt his pride, otherwise.

40. The rule is four paragraphs max. Or at least it used to be.

43. there is no more information in the article....

The statement that the cyclist entered the intersection while the pedestrian light was red was from a witness, but there is no information about who had the actual right of way.

For future reference, cyclists are not pedestrians. They are vehicles under the law every state I've ever ridden in and have the right of way in just about every situation where a motorist would have the right of way in their place. I'm a long time cyclist and it pisses me off to no end to hear ignorant people make statements like "he shouldn't have been in the middle of the road" and similar nonsense. It pisses me off equally to see cyclists blatantly ignoring their responsibility to ride within the law, too.

61. What if you're fiding the bicycle on the sidewalk? Which rules apply?

Traffic rules, or pedestrian rules? On Telegraph Road, I always ride on the sidewalk. The street is three or four lanes in each direction, and the 45 mph limit is generally perceived as "minimum speed". It's no place for a bicycle.

62. laws vary by state....

Check your state motor vehicle code. In California, where I live, the law specifically states that cyclists are supposed to use the traffic lanes but should stay to the right unless turning, and can use the shoulders but are not required to. It gives municipalities the option of banning bicycle travel on sidewalks, but does not do so statewide.

98. What, you mean there's another kind of left turn? nt

99. I worked in Grand Rapids...

...for 2 years. I had to drive to DTW a few times for flights home. I usually drove at 10 - 15 over the speed limit being as you folks seem to see those limits as being LOWER limits. I'd usually pass a few trucks but all the cars usually passed me.

60. A few more details

The story still needs more details. Anyway, the truck turned from northbound Telegraph onto eastbound Northline. So he would have been in a "right turn only" lane. For the bicyclist to hit him, the bicycle must have been on the sidewalk. On Telegraph, the sidewalk is the only smart path for bicycles, but if you're on the sidewalk, you probably need to heed pedestrian crossing lights.

BTW, about the link: "freep" is the local nickname for the Detroit Free Press, not related to "freeper".

78. Let's pretend the driver really had reason to fear for his life.

Why not just drive away? Leaving the scene of an accident is a better option than shooting the cyclist.

On an unrelated matter, the driver noted the crash was caused by the cyclist disregarding the pedestrian light. Will everyone PLEASE get this through your head: cyclists are NOT pedestrians. They are part of the traffic. They belong on the road, not the sidewalk.

84. Possibly because he would be running a red light

into six lanes of traffic. Chances are the cyclist would have held on while hitting him, which would get him killed. You can't safely drive while getting punched in the face. People don't calmly think while getting punched if the face. That is why people who were not there and have no idea what else would affect a decision proclaiming "he should have" is quite frankly, absurd.
Both of the roads are six lane higher speed roads. Perhaps he was surrounded by cars. For all we know the driver considered those possibilities. If it were a four way stop residential street, you might have had a more valid point.

100. Getting punched in the face didn't affect his aim.

And I don't buy the rest of that. The cyclist had the red light, which means the truck had the green. And in my experience (*shrug* I was a reckless teenager, what can I say?) cyclists hanging on your door (so was he) let go when you speed away.

102. can't miss at point blank range

think about it. Driver's seat to window, don't antis actually think before they post? and it really doesn't matter if you buy it or not, so far the police and DA does. They know more about the situation than either one of us.
Can't drive while getting beaten. Besides, the cyclist would be run over or badly injured. That would be leaving the scene of an accident or vehicular homicide. Reckless teenager? Since when was 42 a reckless teenager? That reminds me of Henry Hyde's saying an affair he had in his 40s a youthful indiscretion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde#Extramarital_affair

One more thing, the cyclist did not have a red light, he had the pedestrian "do not cross", but continued anyway. I'm guessing he was using the vehicle rules as a pedestrian. Which means, the cross street had the green light. If Telegraph had the green light, the shooter would have been moving forward. The article reads like the shooter was sitting at a red light.

111. He could have.

What you don't understand is that there multiple responses to being a victim of violent crime.

All of them are equally valid, and it is up to the victim to decide which is the best course of action for them, not for you, and not for the criminal.

Yes, driving away was an option. So was getting out of the truck and fighting off the cyclist with his fists. So was just sitting there and taking the punishment. And so was pulling out a gun and shooting his attacker.

All of these responses are equally valid responses to a violent criminal.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a better option than shooting the cyclist.

Better for who? Better for the violent criminal, no doubt, but in these kinds of situations the only thing that matters is what is the best option for the victim.

112. The cyclist is the victim.

He got hit by a car and then got shot.

And not every response is valid. Murder is a serious crime and it is only self defense if one is reasonably afraid of immediate death or serious injury. Depending on the state, a person may have a duty to retreat before resorting to lethal violence.

113. read the article

he hit the car
If someone who is larger and or stronger than I am is beating me in the face, that meets the "reasonalbe man standard" of death or serious injury.
If you are seat belted in, boxed in by traffic, and getting your face pounded in, you can't reasonably retreat without putting yourself in more danger or violating the law. In that case, you are "against the wall" fulfilling the duty to retreat. Michigan has no such law.

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

In English law the focus of the test is whether the defendant is acting reasonably in the particular situation. There is no specific requirement that a person must retreat in anticipation of an attack. Although some withdrawal would be useful evidence to prove that the defendant did not want to fight, not every defendant is able to escape. In R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816 the defendant was physically attacked, and reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to retreat. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defense.

"Meyers, who stayed at the scene until police arrived, was taken into custody and then released from jail Thursday. He referred us to his attorney, James Makowski, who claims this is a clear cut case of self defense.

"Started pounding on the car saying, 'I'm going to kill you,' reached inside the pickup truck, started pounding on my client's face," Makowski explained. "My client was hitting the gas trying to get away, but in the heat of the moment he didn't realize he... had it in park. Car (is) not going anywhere, so he finally felt no choice but to retrieve his weapon and discharge it."
"